totm may 2024 [1.12.x] - Modular Kolonization System (MKS)

[mcdouble]

9 hours ago, voicey99 said:

MKS is incompatible with KSP-RO thanks to the presence of Kerbalism, which screws around with the resource catchup mechanics MKS relies on.

Since when has RO used Kerbalism? It's not in any of the releases I've seen, including the most recent 1.2.2 builds... it still uses TAC life support.

[RoverDude]

1 hour ago, Gilph said:

To do exactly what you are asking, then @voicey99is right. But, you can use PL in a somewhat indirect way as the storage.

If you have a vessel making Machinery, and you have Logistics module, then the excess Machinery will be pushed to PL.  If you have vessels nearby that need their Machinery replenished, then each of them need a Machinery tank with PL enabled, Logistics modules, and a pilot in the neighborhood. Lock the Machinery storage that is local to your resource converters.  This will force the Machinery consumption to come from the Machinery tank that has PL enabled. Once that tank goes low, it will pull Machinery from PL.

Or just use an engineer and perform maintenance... or have a workshop and an engineer

1 hour ago, mcdouble said:

Since when has RO used Kerbalism? It's not in any of the releases I've seen, including the most recent 1.2.2 builds... it still uses TAC life support.

That's good to hear

[Kobymaru]

4 hours ago, RoverDude said:

Or just use an engineer and perform maintenance... or have a workshop and an engineer

Kontainers don't have the option for maintenance.

That was the original question: how do I transfer surplus Machinery from my factory to a disconnected storage container?

I'll probably just do it the old KIS/KAS  way.

[jd284]

8 hours ago, Kobymaru said:

Kontainers don't have the option for maintenance.

That was the original question: how do I transfer surplus Machinery from my factory to a disconnected storage container?

I'll probably just do it the old KIS/KAS  way.

I don't know if there's a rationale for excluding it from local logistics (using the dashboard), when it participates in planetary logistics with no problem.

Why should it be different from any other resource? You can pump it normally within a vessel.

It just doesn't make any sense to me.

I mean, sure, automated transfers are kinda dangerous because they might steal machinery from an important module. But they could just ignore non-warehouses like they do for planetary logistics.

[Kobymaru]

1 minute ago, jd284 said:

I don't know if there's a rationale for excluding it from local logistics (using the dashboard), when it participates in planetary logistics with no problem.

That's why:

1 minute ago, jd284 said:

I mean, sure, automated transfers are kinda dangerous because they might steal machinery from an important module.

That was indeed RoverDudes rationale.

 

1 minute ago, jd284 said:

But they could just ignore non-warehouses like they do for planetary logistics.

I kind of agree with you, but mind you: there is a bug that might make this a problem:

I have an organics container (local logistics enabled) attached to an Agriculture Module that needs Organics to run. When other vessels pull organics from this one, the Organics get stolen out of the Agriculture Module even though it doesn't participate in local logistics and even though I specifically locked the organics there. That stalls the Agriculture module and I have to manually refill it. Super annoying.

Now imagine that the same thing would happen with Machinery! Your Machinery factory would constantly stall because those pesky Kerbals steal the machinery out of the machinery factory. Not nice.

If this were fixed (locking resources actually prevents pulling from them), I personally wouldn't see a problem allowing Machinery to participate in local logistics. But RoverDude might see it differently.

[RoverDude]

Locking is now allowed in the dev release, but having machinery move around in anything other than logistics containers would be very problematic.  So feel free to log a GitHub issue

[Kobymaru]

1 minute ago, RoverDude said:

but having machinery move around in anything other than logistics containers would be very problematic.  So feel free to log a GitHub issue

GitHub issue for what? 

[RoverDude]

GitHub issue to allow moving machinery around but only for parts where logistics are enabled (i.e. not parts in general that may have converters - that's what maintenance does).

[Kobymaru]

47 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

GitHub issue to allow moving machinery around but only for parts where logistics are enabled (i.e. not parts in general that may have converters - that's what maintenance does).

Done: https://github.com/BobPalmer/MKS/issues/1258

Thanks for your efforts!

[voicey99]

@Kobymaru in the meantime, try this small MM patch I wrote-it lets kontainers (octo and cylindrical) pull from other nearby kontainers with the maintenance function. The kontainers also pull from others on the same vessel (but not modules that need machinery) so it's suboptimal but it's the best you're going to get short of actually wiring them up with KIS/KAS.

[megamike]

I'm not sure this is the correct place for this, but I found a pretty awesome glitch between the inflatable LFO tank and one of the resource switcher mods (I'm still tracking down which one).

If you swap the tank to Liquid Hydrogen it works great, until it Is fully depleted at which point it tears off its connection point and detonates the ship in a glorious fashion (right after easing physics if you launch with it empty). It was quite funny (although sadly I lost my main scientist when I realized I could no longer revert to the launchpad) to watch the command pod launch at 5.5million m/s. I have tested the other available fuel switch options and they all work properly.

I'm curious if this is a missing config option on the tank itself, or if the fuel switch mod in question isn't playing nicely? I can swap other tanks to Liquid Hydrogen without any issue.

Thanks for advance for any information, I'm going to continue to poke at this until I get it either way .

[voicey99]

2 hours ago, megamike said:

I'm not sure this is the correct place for this, but I found a pretty awesome glitch between the inflatable LFO tank and one of the resource switcher mods (I'm still tracking down which one).

If you swap the tank to Liquid Hydrogen it works great, until it Is fully depleted at which point it tears off its connection point and detonates the ship in a glorious fashion (right after easing physics if you launch with it empty). It was quite funny (although sadly I lost my main scientist when I realized I could no longer revert to the launchpad) to watch the command pod launch at 5.5million m/s. I have tested the other available fuel switch options and they all work properly.

I'm curious if this is a missing config option on the tank itself, or if the fuel switch mod in question isn't playing nicely? I can swap other tanks to Liquid Hydrogen without any issue.

Thanks for advance for any information, I'm going to continue to poke at this until I get it either way .

What fuel switch mod/s are you using? I'm using CC and B9, and neither offer an option to muck around with the inflatable tank.

Edited April 22, 2017 by voicey99

[voicey99]

I want to PR in a fix for one or two spelling mistakes in the DLL, what program/s would allow me to do that?

[goldenpsp]

1 hour ago, voicey99 said:

I want to PR in a fix for one or two spelling mistakes in the DLL, what program/s would allow me to do that?

Notepad?  If you are doing just a couple spelling fixes you could do it all online on github.

[megamike]

4 hours ago, voicey99 said:

What fuel switch mod/s are you using? I'm using CC and B9, and neither offer an option to muck around with the inflatable tank.

I have both of those and interstellar fuel switch, which is likely the culprit!

Thanks for the quick response @voicey99, you have narrowed my search by 2/3

They all came required from other mods. I would rather only have one installed but such is life!

Edit: The config file looks the same as a regular hydrogen tank. IFS is a .dll which is probably beyond me atm. I'm going to leave this beast alone for now. Beware the highly efficient empty expandable hydrogen tank propulsion system......

Edited April 22, 2017 by megamike
more digging

[voicey99]

33 minutes ago, goldenpsp said:

Notepad?  If you are doing just a couple spelling fixes you could do it all online on github.

GH won't open the DLL (would editing the .cs files do that?) and Notepad displays it as strings of Unicode gibberish like 0 é  C   B  («  B  (¸  rk p~0  B  %"  HB(¬ ¢ (®  ({  oƒ  {¹ ~0  B  %" (with more non-ASCII symbols that the forums won't display). The program I use to decompile and inspect DLL code doesn't allow you to edit them-probably for legal reasons. I also can't find a free program that will recompile it for you.

Edited April 22, 2017 by voicey99

[goldenpsp]

Just now, voicey99 said:

GH won't open the DLL (would editing the .cs files do that?) and Notepad displays it as strings of Unicode gibberish like 0 é  C   B  («  B  (¸  rk p~0  B  %"  HB(¬ ¢ (®  ({  oƒ  {¹ ~0  B  %". The program I use to inspect DLLs doesn't allow you to edit them-probably for legal reasons.

Yea you can't edit the DLL, you have to edit the source so when @RoverDude compiles the next release the changes are there.  For just a few changes you can literally just fork the dev branch on github, fix the relevant .cs files and then do your PR.

It's not a legal issue. the actual DLL is the compiled code.

[voicey99]

1 minute ago, goldenpsp said:

Yea you can't edit the DLL, you have to edit the source so when @RoverDude compiles the next release the changes are there.  For just a few changes you can literally just fork the dev branch on github, fix the relevant .cs files and then do your PR.

It's not a legal issue. the actual DLL is the compiled code.

Oh, so RD has to actually compile the .cs files to produce the next DLL edition before the changes are made? If that's the case a code compiler program would be very useful to check any changes I made didn't break anything.

[goldenpsp]

Just now, voicey99 said:

Oh, so RD has to actually compile the .cs files to produce the next DLL edition before the changes are made? If that's the case a code compiler program would be very useful to check any changes I made didn't break anything.

True.  If you want to test the changes, and use the same as @RoverDude I'd get MS visual studio.  99.9999% sure that's what he uses.

[jd284]

12 minutes ago, megamike said:

I have both of those and interstellar fuel switch, which is likely the culprit!

Thanks for the quick response @voicey99, you have narrowed my search by 2/3

They all came required from other mods. I would rather only have one installed but such is life!

I wouldn't be surprised if it's the interaction between multiple mods that causes this.

My first guess would be that somehow it makes the dry mass of the empty fuel tank negative, which does cause awesome physics glitches. This would explain why it only happens when it's empty, and why it doesn't happen for the standard fuel config.

[voicey99]

24 minutes ago, goldenpsp said:

True.  If you want to test the changes, and use the same as @RoverDude I'd get MS visual studio.  99.9999% sure that's what he uses.

Hm, on looking at the .cs, what I initially thought was a typo is actually not. On kontainers, the option to "Toggle Planetary Warehous" has been bugging me for ages, but on inspecting the .cs it turns out that it is actually spelled correctly, instead being cut off in the UI. How strange.

[TauPhraim]

1 hour ago, voicey99 said:

Hm, on looking at the .cs, what I initially thought was a typo is actually not. On kontainers, the option to "Toggle Planetary Warehous" has been bugging me for ages, but on inspecting the .cs it turns out that it is actually spelled correctly, instead being cut off in the UI. How strange.

I was bugged by this one too I think KSP just truncates the text when it's too long.

[dangel74]

I am sorry if that has been asked already but I recently encountered a problem with organics in MKS Tundra agriculture modules. So, basically, if you have an agriculture module and assembly plant configured to produce colony supplies, organics is consumed both from your warehouse and agriculture module. This leads to an increasing reduction in organics output by agriculture module and ultimately to depletion of your organics reserves. I tried to set different flow priorities for my storage containers and agriculture modules but it didn't change a thing. So is it a bug or am I doing something wrong?

Edited April 22, 2017 by dangel74

[jd284]

48 minutes ago, dangel74 said:

So, basically, if you have an agriculture module and assembly plant configured to produce colony supplies, organics is consumed both from your warehouse and agriculture module.

 You can lock the organics in the Ag module so they can't be taken from there.

[Kobymaru]

13 hours ago, jd284 said:

 You can lock the organics in the Ag module so they can't be taken from there.

In the current version, you can't. Even if you lock it, Organics are still taken out of the converter. I believe RoverDude mentioned that this will be fixed in the next version.